Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 4, 2007, 05:53 pm

Fonce, Zhavric is asking you to substantiate the statement 'Intelligence at the beginning of the universe is possible' because you are a theist. In this argument, however, you seem to be arguing agnosticly.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 4, 2007, 05:54 pm

Quote:

Ah, alright. But isn't that assuming an infinite universe? Given only a finite amount of time and space, the emergence of a god is highly dependent on the various assumptions made about this probability space.

The bulk, or the collection of all universi has to be infinite, unless you subscribe to acausality.

Captain Chaos · Feb 4, 2007, 06:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: nm420

Ah, alright. But isn't that assuming an infinite universe? Given only a finite amount of time and space, the emergence of a god is highly dependent on the various assumptions made about this probability space.

I assume that the outermost dimension of time regresses and progresses infinitely.

I find acausality, by which I mean something coming from nothing, to be unbelievable. If we reject acausality, infinite regression is the only alternative (unless you wish to conclude that we do not exist).

Zhavric · Feb 4, 2007, 06:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Captain Chaos

Actually, Zhavric, I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not offer a level of debate worth bothering with.

ItsDarts, Isherwood, and many other atheists provide intelligent debate. You just repeat the same thing over and over, and ignore the details of what your debating opponent says.

Why waste my time on you, when I can engage with the others who actually probe concepts deeply?

Strike two. Third time is the charm, yes? Care to rebut the post or do you agree with it?

Zhavric · Feb 4, 2007, 06:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Fonceai

The request was for you to provide a reference showing the development of intelligence and/or consciousness was gradual.

The first link was about development of new species.

The second link points to more links.

You didn't provide any references at all.

Before you say they are, go ahead and search for the words "sentience", "intelligence", or "consciousness" in either of those links.

They don't show up.

It's called "burden of proof."

You said it was gradual. I'm telling you to prove it.

I don't have to prove the opposite.

All you have to do is post one link. Is it all that hard?

Wake up!!

I never said it was.

I just wanted you to provide some kind of reference that substantiated your statement.

Nice try, but you need to go back to Google and keep looking for a clear references.

As I wrote before... if there are "dozens" of references, why can't you provide one?

See Kame's comment. What IS your stance on this debate and what is your support for it?

Also, were the links I posted not working? Help me understand why you ignored them.

Captain Chaos · Feb 4, 2007, 06:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Zhavric

Strike two. Third time is the charm, yes? Care to rebut the post or do you agree with it?

Run along an play, Z. The adults are talking now

I am teasing...

But, being serious...

Your posts are not worth my time, Zhavric. That is just how it is.

Zhavric · Feb 4, 2007, 06:36 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Captain Chaos

Run along an play, Z. The adults are talking now

I'm saddened that you feel that way. No matter.

Fonceai · Feb 4, 2007, 08:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Z

See Kame's comment. What IS your stance on this debate and what is your support for it?

Also, were the links I posted not working? Help me understand why you ignored them.

Now you're being ignorant.

My stance doesn't matter.

I asked you to support your statements.

And I didn't ignore your links... I read them and then commented on them.

How can you quote me and not see where I told you that what you pasted was irrelevant?

Knock off the bullshit and post a reference, or drop the point.

Zhavric · Feb 5, 2007, 11:04 am

Quote:

Quote by: Fonceai

Now you're being ignorant.

My stance doesn't matter.

I asked you to support your statements.

And I didn't ignore your links... I read them and then commented on them.

How can you quote me and not see where I told you that what you pasted was irrelevant?

Knock off the bullshit and post a reference, or drop the point.

Your ad hominem attacks aren't furthering the debate and your stance does matter. It is theists who claim that god exists. Are you taking a theist stance?

Do you support the god hypothesis? Yes or no?

Fonceai · Feb 5, 2007, 11:08 am

Stop evading.

If I post my stance, you'll ignore having to support your statements and criticize mine instead.

Well now it's your turn.

You were asked to provide a reference. If you cannot do so, just say you can't. If you can, then do it. But stop trying to dodge.

Zhavric · Feb 5, 2007, 05:18 pm

Fonceai, do you or do you not support the god hypothesis?

Ignoring my evidence does not mean I've failed to provide it.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 5, 2007, 05:29 pm

From a detached perspective:

Fonceai, you are either arguing as an agnostic or a theist. If it's a theist, you also need to provide evidence against Zhavric's claim. If you're arguing as an agnostic, then the burden of proof is on Zhav. Your stance is very much relevant.

Zhavric, you are making the positive claim that intelligence at the beginning of the universe is impossible, or highly unlikely. That requires cited articles. If you've cited them already, I apologize, but can you cite them again to move along the argument?

Fonceai · Feb 5, 2007, 05:47 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Z

Fonceai, do you or do you not support the god hypothesis?

How did this game go when I was a kid?

Oh yeah...

I asked you first.

Quote:

Quote by: Z

Ignoring my evidence does not mean I've failed to provide it.

Again, in bolded, capital letters so you can't possibly miss it...

I DID NOT IGNORE YOUR EVIDENCE>

I READ THOSE LINKS AND THEN SPECIFICALLY COMMENTED ON EACH

@Kame

Me requesting someone to cite some kind of reference has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Consider the following from the opening post...

Quote:

Quote by: Z

We have zero evidence for the god hypothesis and considerable evidence suggesting it's false.

Discuss.

First he says there is considerable evidence suggesting the God Hypothesis is false. I want to see the evidence. He has provided none.

Second, he tosses out "Discuss" as though he's running the show. The problem is that I can't discuss something without a foundation.

Or to put it in terms that you might prefer...

How can I address a statement if the premises are not yet shown to be true?

If he can't support the premises of his statement, how can I write an opinion of that statement?

So first, I need references to support his claim.

Once he provides ones that address it clearly, I can give an informed opinion.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 5, 2007, 05:54 pm

Quote:

Me requesting someone to cite some kind of reference has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Right, not your personal opinion, just what you are in the argument. If you are attacking his evidence without supporting theism, you're arguing agnosticly. Tell that to him and he'll be less belligerent about your own lack of support.

Fonceai · Feb 5, 2007, 06:04 pm

Why would I want to give an opinion based on a statement with unproven premises?

I'll wait for the proof so I can make an informed opinion.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 5, 2007, 06:50 pm

To affirm the negative.

Note: It's a conjecture, not an opinion, unless you want to change the context of the claim to "I'm convinced that there's a god".

Fonceai · Feb 5, 2007, 07:28 pm

Do you realize how idiotic you're being?

You do remember everything you were trying to say about premises?

Now you're telling me that I should take a stance on something when that which I'm standing on is still up in the air?

I don't think so.

How about you let Zhavric take care of this himself and let him post some references first?

Kamehameha34 · Feb 5, 2007, 07:43 pm

Pick a stance. You're either arguing agnosticly (deconstructing his points), or for theism (constructing your own). Whichever one you're doing defines your stance. I'm telling you how to further your lacking communication.

Quote:

Do you realize how idiotic you're being?

You see, this is where the pet phrase of yours comes in.

Pot calling the kettle black, I see.

Fonceai · Feb 5, 2007, 08:02 pm

Anyone who has chosen a stance has done so by automatically accepting premises that are not yet shown to be proven.

I think that is ignorant, so I will not choose a stance.

Not until I know that the original statement in the opening post is sound.

Besides, I don't see anyone else telling me I'm wrong to ask for evidence.

Kamehameha34 · Feb 5, 2007, 08:08 pm

Quote:

Anyone who has chosen a stance has done so by automatically accepting premises that are not yet shown to be proven.

So you're an agnostic in this argument. Tell him that.

Feb 5, 2007, 05:18 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Zhavric Made of pure win. Posts: 3,810	Fonceai, do you or do you not support the god hypothesis? Ignoring my evidence does not mean I've failed to provide it. Theists: supplying volconvo with lose since 2004.

Feb 4, 2007, 05:53 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Kamehameha34 The dingos! Posts: 4,548	Fonce, Zhavric is asking you to substantiate the statement 'Intelligence at the beginning of the universe is possible' because you are a theist. In this argument, however, you seem to be arguing agnosticly.

Feb 5, 2007, 11:08 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	Stop evading. If I post my stance, you'll ignore having to support your statements and criticize mine instead. Well now it's your turn. You were asked to provide a reference. If you cannot do so, just say you can't. If you can, then do it. But stop trying to dodge.

Feb 5, 2007, 05:29 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
Kamehameha34 The dingos! Posts: 4,548	From a detached perspective: Fonceai, you are either arguing as an agnostic or a theist. If it's a theist, you also need to provide evidence against Zhavric's claim. If you're arguing as an agnostic, then the burden of proof is on Zhav. Your stance is very much relevant. Zhavric, you are making the positive claim that intelligence at the beginning of the universe is impossible, or highly unlikely. That requires cited articles. If you've cited them already, I apologize, but can you cite them again to move along the argument?

Feb 5, 2007, 06:04 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	Why would I want to give an opinion based on a statement with unproven premises? I'll wait for the proof so I can make an informed opinion.

Feb 5, 2007, 06:50 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
Kamehameha34 The dingos! Posts: 4,548	To affirm the negative. Note: It's a conjecture, not an opinion, unless you want to change the context of the claim to "I'm convinced that there's a god".

Feb 5, 2007, 07:28 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	Do you realize how idiotic you're being? You do remember everything you were trying to say about premises? Now you're telling me that I should take a stance on something when that which I'm standing on is still up in the air? I don't think so. How about you let Zhavric take care of this himself and let him post some references first?

Feb 5, 2007, 08:02 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	Anyone who has chosen a stance has done so by automatically accepting premises that are not yet shown to be proven. I think that is ignorant, so I will not choose a stance. Not until I know that the original statement in the opening post is sound. Besides, I don't see anyone else telling me I'm wrong to ask for evidence.